06 May The Request To Comment On The Deed With The Determination That The House In Question Was Made By The Plaintiff
SUPREME General Assembly Of Law
1986/1-281
1986/490
Decision Date: 07.05.1986
TITLE DEED CANCELLATION AND REGISTRATION CASE – PLAINTIFF OF THE HOUSE IN QUESTION
BY DETERMINATION OF THE LAND REGISTRY
REQUEST FOR COMMENT – IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE SUBJECT OF THE LAWSUIT
THE POSSIBILITY OF CLARIFYING THE CLAIM TO THE LAND REGISTRY
Absence
Summary: The plaintiff, although, built the two-storey house on real estate numbered 903 parcels, with his own money
the claim made in relation to the house subject to the lawsuit, even though he requested that it be explained to the deed.
since it is not possible to comment on the Land Registry, however, in the declarations section of the land registry
it can be shown.
(743 P. K. m. 919)
Case: at the end of the trial due to the case between the parties; Taşköprü First Instance law
Examination of the decision no. 25-642 and 7.12.1983 on the rejection of the case by the court
upon request by the plaintiff,
(…The parties are stakeholders for joint ownership in the 903 parcels of real estate subject to litigation. File
according to its contents, the plaintiff said that the northbound two-storey house on the parcel belonged to him
he wanted to identify and comment on the title deed in this way. The court also contested the building’s terekeye
since it was made with the included money and the claim could not be proven, it was decided to dismiss the case with the wager.
However, local expert witnesses and witnesses heard in the record of the tapulama Mehmet Y., Yusuf Y.,
Mehmet K. and the plaintiff witnesses November and Hussein by the plaintiff with their own money of the house subject to the case
their common inheritance is from the date of Rashid’s death, 1940, and the external division between his heirs
they then reported that it had been built in a way that left no room for hesitation. This evidence is being pushed aside
the defendants who made the statement that the contentious building was built with money included in the Muris cerekeesi
ELife’s husband witness Mustafa Ö.the decision to dismiss the case in writing with respect to the word of the
there is no harm in giving…) on the grounds that the file is being turned back instead of being corrupted, re-made
at the end of the trial, the court resisted the previous decision.
The law was examined by the General Assembly and it was understood that the decision to resist was appealed during its duration; and
after reading the papers in the file, the requirement was discussed:
Decision: the plaintiff is determined that the house in question was made by him and thus the land registry
he asked for comment; the court dismissed the case, admitting that the claim could not be proven. File
with evidence collected and corroborating each other, the plaintiff proved that the house was built by him.
The plaintiff, although, built the two-storey house on real estate numbered 903 parcels, with his own money
the claim made in relation to the house subject to the lawsuit, even though he requested that it be explained to the deed.
since it is not possible to comment on the Land Registry, however, in the declarations section of the land registry
it can be shown.
Then, according to the evidence collected, the house in question was made by the plaintiff
Synergy legislation and Case Law Program page 1/2
Esas No.:
Decision No:
SUPREME
. General Assembly Of Law
1986/1-281
1986/490
Decision Date: 07.05.1986
T.C.
to be understood; with the acceptance of the case, the declaration of the title deed Register that the house was built by the plaintiff
while the decision should be made to write to the house, the refusal of the case should be resisted in the provision of the procedure and
It is against the law. Therefore, the decision to resist must be overturned.
Conclusion: the decision of the plaintiff to resist with the acceptance of the appeals Appeals described above and the special circle
it was decided by unanimous decision to have it overturned due to the reasons cited in the notice of impairment. (¤¤)
No Comments